Subject: extending status codes

From: "Robert Sayre" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 14:13:35 -0400

I recently got into a debate with a colleague about whether it would
be acceptable to use higher 5xx codes for custom status codes. I
maintained no, it's a shared namespace, we shouldn't do that. But the
response was "show me where it says you can't do that". To me it seems
implied, but maybe it's not to someone who wants to Get Work Done as
fast as possible by writing a switch statement on a number.

Could we get a sentence explaining that adding status codes requires
coordination?

-- 

Robert Sayre

"I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."

---

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 20:19:00 +0200

>Could we get a sentence explaining that adding status codes requires

RFC 2817 already states

   Values to be added to this name space SHOULD be subject to review in
   the form of a standards track document within the IETF Applications
   Area.  Any such document SHOULD be traceable through statuses of
   either 'Obsoletes' or 'Updates' to the Draft Standard for
   HTTP/1.1 [1].

What should be added, and where, in addition to that?
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[email-masked] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 20:24:16 +0200

> Could we get a sentence explaining that adding status codes requires

Yes, and that coordination is defined in 
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2817#section-7.1>. Not a good place, 
though, thus <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i59>.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: "Larry Masinter" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 11:24:37 -0700

I think the point is that the HTTP status code registry should be
described in the (updated) HTTP 1.1 specification, rather than
buried in a document about upgrading to TLS in HTTP.

I think this is another instance of incorporating (or at least
referencing) material from other RFCs that updated or extended
the HTTP specification.

Larry

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Bjoern Hoehrmann
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 11:19 AM
To: Robert Sayre
Cc: [email-masked] Group
Subject: Re: extending status codes

RFC 2817 already states